Hi, I'm taking a Philosophy class.....

[JAL]

Here is the point you are missing. Every fossil we find is a transitional of some kind. They all fit within the tree of life, near some junction of branches.

I don't think I missed that point. I am aware that "species" and "transitional" are relative terms and, as such, have no absolute demarcations. Thus every transitional creature is a species in its own right, and every species is a transitional creature (assuming evolution is true).

With all this relatavity, things can get confusing, so when I stated my argument, I chose a specific reference point, namely the supposed transition of apes to men. I said that there should be - from a ratio-standpoint - a thousand times more "missing links" in the fossil record than either apes or men. And I stated that this ratio should also hold true for other species-to-species evolutions - there should be, say, a thousand missing links for each evolved species.

 

[JAL]

The reason why we sometimes see long periods of stasis within a species, then a gap and then a new species without any fossil examples of species in the continuum between the two is very adequately explained by PE, but that is another discussion.

Well, good. This is a more direct response to my objection. The theory of PE addresses ratios, not just total fossils, and thus tries to solve the problem that I raised. The problem is that PE doesn't seem very plausible to me. After all, it's hard enough for we creationists to accept the idea of transitional forms, surely you don't think PE will be EASIER for us to accept? PE seems much harder to accept than slow transitions, but feel free to clarify where I might be misunderstanding PE.

 

[Randall McNally]

Well, good. This is a more direct response to my objection. The theory of PE addresses ratios, not just total fossils, and thus tries to solve the problem that I raised. The problem is that PE doesn't seem very plausible to me. After all, it's hard enough for we creationists to accept the idea of transitional forms, surely you don't think PE will be EASIER for us to accept? PE seems much harder to accept than slow transitions, but feel free to clarify where I might be misunderstanding PE.

At a glance, it looks like you might misunderstand PE timescales. It's not like PE proposes hundred-year speciation cycles, as opposed to gradualism's millions.

 

[Vance]

Well, good. This is a more direct response to my objection. The theory of PE addresses ratios, not just total fossils, and thus tries to solve the problem that I raised. The problem is that PE doesn't seem very plausible to me. After all, it's hard enough for we creationists to accept the idea of transitional forms, surely you don't think PE will be EASIER for us to accept? PE seems much harder to accept than slow transitions, but feel free to clarify where I might be misunderstanding PE.

What is ironic is that Creationist groups like AiG and ICR argue that evolution occured VERY rapidly after the flood, much more rapidly than would ever be needed for PE.

As for the ratios of apes, humans and other hominids, that is really not all that difficult. The older fossils are, the less likely we will have survived and that we will find them. We have a few examples of very early hominids and the "ape" branch that would have existed at the same time periods, more of later hominids (and the corresponding ape branch) and a bunch as we get into erectus, neandertal and us. Part of this is also because the populations of all of these groups were very likely greater and greater as we got later and later. More of the species, more possible fossils to leave behind.

What is most compelling is how smooth the spectrum is shown for hominid development from the earliest all the way down. It really is one of our best represented lines. If you have not already done so, you might want to check out this:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/

and this

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/species.html

 

[HRE]

PE deals with small, isolated populations under intense NS pressure, among which mutations spread much more quickly than large populations because of their small size.

 

[Ondoher]

I don't think I missed that point. I am aware that "species" and "transitional" are relative terms and, as such, have no absolute demarcations. Thus every transitional creature is a species in its own right, and every species is a transitional creature (assuming evolution is true).

With all this relatavity, things can get confusing, so when I stated my argument, I chose a specific reference point, namely the supposed transition of apes to men. I said that there should be - from a ratio-standpoint - a thousand times more "missing links" in the fossil record than either apes or men. And I stated that this ratio should also hold true for other species-to-species evolutions - there should be, say, a thousand missing links for each evolved species.

No, you are still not getting it. Here is a transitional series:

ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ

Here is what we find in the fossil record:
CGHKMPS

In this hypothetical example, we have 7 transitional fossils. What we don't have is a great deal of gradualism, although there is enough data to see the transitional nature. The fossil record is not short on transitional fossils, it is short of neat series of gradual changes where have found a great deal of fine resolution of change. The reasons for this are pretty clear, the rarity of fossilization as well as things like puctuated equilibrium. In PE a species stay relatively static for an extended period of time, until a small subset of the population comes under a new selection pressure and undergoes geologically rapid evolution (tends of thousands of years). If this smaller population speciates and then spreads out to replace the greater population, it can look like an instantanious replacement. Unless you happen to look where the isolated population diversified, you'd never find any indication of how the change took place.

However, that said, there are some great examples of smooth changes in the fossil record.:

 

[gluadys]

I don't think I missed that point. I am aware that "species" and "transitional" are relative terms and, as such, have no absolute demarcations. Thus every transitional creature is a species in its own right, and every species is a transitional creature (assuming evolution is true).

With all this relatavity, things can get confusing, so when I stated my argument, I chose a specific reference point, namely the supposed transition of apes to men. I said that there should be - from a ratio-standpoint - a thousand times more "missing links" in the fossil record than either apes or men. And I stated that this ratio should also hold true for other species-to-species evolutions - there should be, say, a thousand missing links for each evolved species.

But your specific reference point is not all that specific either. Which ape species do you mean? Which human species do you mean?

There will be many forms between Dryopithecus and H. sapiens, but very few between a late Australopithecus and H. habilis. And, of course, the latter two are both transitionals in relation to the former two.

 

[JAL]

Everyone, I did not say that I have rejected evolution. But I have reservations and I doubt that I will have time to study all the evidence. Right now there are two obstacles to my accepting it. (1) Punctuated equilibrium seems to be a theory. I'm not sure it has been PROVEN (that is, not to the extent that other scienctific theories have been "proven"). (2) I can't go into all my reasons, but I still detect hints of bias on the evolutionary side (although much less than most Creationists have exhibited). As a result, I still have to look to Creationists sources for help, specifically Hugh Ross, because I don't have the intellect or the time to study all the source material when forming my opinions/reservations. He has read more of the literature. You will ask, then why do I bother to form an opinion at all? Because I don't believe that the Bible CLEARLY teaches evolution and consequently I'm a bit leery of it. Look at it this way. In the past, the Bible was part of the American curriculum. Today, prayer has been removed from public schools and Christian students can be reprimanded for expressing their Christianity. You will be hard pressed to convince me that evolutionism has nothing to do with this. Just as we speak of the straw that broke the camel's back, evolutionism seems to be the straw that finally secularized our school system. I'm not saying that evolutionism is the only factor (perhaps it was only a straw). But it SEEMS to play a significant role, so I can't help but form opinions about it even though I am uneducated about evolution.

Now back to Hugh Ross. I like him because (A) he doesn't throw all science to the wayside and (B) he strives for a literal reading of the Bible. I don't know to what extent I can trust his conclusions, but right now I have no one else to look to. My experience with God leads me to prefer a literal reading of the Bible. Hugh Ross is the only scientist I know who has this same aspiration.

You guys show me a whole slew of supposedly transitional forms. Hugh Ross says that they are not transitional. Who am I supposed to believe? At this point, I don't know. All I can say is that I still have reservations about evolution. Here is an article by Hugh Ross that I am currently looking at. It will take me a while to work through it. Feel free to comment on it if you like:
http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/humanevolution.shtml

 

[Nathan David]

With all this relatavity, things can get confusing, so when I stated my argument, I chose a specific reference point, namely the supposed transition of apes to men. I said that there should be - from a ratio-standpoint - a thousand times more "missing links" in the fossil record than either apes or men.

And there are, although I don't know where you get the idea that the ratio should be "thousands" to one. Compare all the different extinct hominid species they've found with the one species of hominid and four or five species of great ape that are alive today.

Some extinct species of hominids:

• Australopithecus ramidus -5 to 4 million years BCE
• Australopithecus afarensis -4 to 2.7 million years BCE
• Australopithecus africanus -3.0 to 2.0 million years BCE
• Australopithecus robustus -2.2 to 1.0 million years BCE
• Homo habilis -2.2 to 1.6 million years BCE
• Homo erectus -2 to 0.4 million years BCE
• Homo sapiens -400,000 to 200,000 years BCE
• Homo sapiens neandertalensis -200,000 to 30,000 years BCE

and the only one still around:

• Homo sapiens sapiens - 130,000 years BCE to present

(from here)

Regarding apes, according to this site:

TO DATE, RESEARCHERS have identified as many as 40 genera of Miocene fossil apes from localities across the Old World - eight times the number that survive today.

 

[Nathan David]

Because I don't believe that the Bible CLEARLY teaches evolution

Of course it doesn't. It doesn't teach physics either. The Bible is not a science book.

In the past, the Bible was part of the American curriculum. Today, prayer has been removed from public schools

Only mandatory prayer has been removed, and a good thing too.

and Christian students can be reprimanded for expressing their Christianity.

False. Christian students have a constitutional right to express their Christianity, which has been held up in court, thanks in parts to the efforts of the ACLU, of which I am a member. That's OK, you don't need to thank me.

You will be hard pressed to convince me that evolutionism has nothing to do with this.

It wasn't evolution, but that pesky Constitution. Blame James Madison, not Charles Darwin.

Just as we speak of the straw that broke the camel's back, evolutionism seems to be the straw that finally secularized our school system.

If you believe that our public school system shouldn't be secular, then you are unamerican and I'm going to have to insist you get the heck out of my country.

You guys show me a whole slew of supposedly transitional forms. Hugh Ross says that they are not transitional. Who am I supposed to believe?

Don't believe us. Believe the reputable biologists we are quoting. We're just a bunch of people posting on the internet. But the theory of evolution is supported by the ongoing research of millions of biologists all over the world.

 

[Randall McNally]

Right now there are two obstacles to my accepting it. (1) Punctuated equilibrium seems to be a theory. I'm not sure it has been PROVEN (that is, not to the extent that other scienctific theories have been "proven").

Of course PE is a theory. All scientific explanations are theories and not one will ever be anything more than a theory.

(2) I can't go into all my reasons, but I still detect hints of bias on the evolutionary side (although much less than most Creationists have exhibited). As a result, I still have to look to Creationists sources for help, specifically Hugh Ross, because I don't have the intellect or the time to study all the source material when forming my opinions/reservations. He has read more of the literature. You will ask, then why do I bother to form an opinion at all? Because I don't believe that the Bible CLEARLY teaches evolution and consequently I'm a bit leery of it.

That's an absurd standard for belief, one which you probably don't apply to other Biblical doctrines. The Bible doesn't clearly teach microevolution, genetics, adaptation and most of the other scientific tidbits that modern Creationism borrows.

The Bible doesn't even clearly teach that Jesus was God - that had to be elucidated after the fact by a bunch of church muckety-mucks who took it upon themselves to decide which books properly belong in the Bible.

Just as we speak of the straw that broke the camel's back, evolutionism seems to be the straw that finally secularized our school system. I'm not saying that evolutionism is the only factor (perhaps it was only a straw). But it SEEMS to play a significant role, so I can't help but form opinions about it even though I am uneducated about evolution.

On the high school volleyball team I coached last year, every single girl was an active member of FCA, all 15 of them. They even prayed together before matches. And every one either was taking biology or had taken it previously.

Now back to Hugh Ross. I like him because (A) he doesn't throw all science to the wayside and (B) he strives for a literal reading of the Bible. I don't know to what extent I can trust his conclusions, but right now I have no one else to look to. My experience with God leads me to prefer a literal reading of the Bible. Hugh Ross is the only scientist I know who has this same aspiration.

(B) makes (A) irrelevant. If Ross is willing to discard any science for the express purpose of maintaining a "literal" Genesis, then it doesn't matter a whit which science he doesn't discard. He can't do science if his science is subservient to his faith.

 

[Nathan David]

The Bible doesn't even clearly teach that Jesus was God - that had to be elucidated after the fact by a bunch of church muckety-mucks who took it upon themselves to decide which books properly belong in the Bible.

 

[Ondoher]

Everyone, I did not say that I have rejected evolution. But I have reservations and I doubt that I will have time to study all the evidence. Right now there are two obstacles to my accepting it. (1) Punctuated equilibrium seems to be a theory. I'm not sure it has been PROVEN (that is, not to the extent that other scienctific theories have been "proven").

No scientific theories have ever been proven, they are supported and provisionally accepted. PE is nothing more than a recognition of the tempo of evolution due to selection pressures and population sizes. There is a good thread in this forum that goes over the evidence for PE. If I have time, I'll look for it.

(2) I can't go into all my reasons, but I still detect hints of bias on the evolutionary side (although much less than most Creationists have exhibited).

Evolution has a huge bias. It is science, and as science it can only concern itself with natural explanations that can be tested.

As a result, I still have to look to Creationists sources for help, specifically Hugh Ross, because I don't have the intellect or the time to study all the source material when forming my opinions/reservations. He has read more of the literature.

Hugh Ross is good in that he accepts the evidence for an old universe, however, when it comes to biology he is out of his league and apparently affected by Morton's Demon like the rest of the creationists. His arguments against evolution fail as badly as a young earth creationist. I'd be happy to go into any detail on any of these arguments you'd like to bring up.

You will ask, then why do I bother to form an opinion at all? Because I don't believe that the Bible CLEARLY teaches evolution and consequently I'm a bit leery of it. Look at it this way. In the past, the Bible was part of the American curriculum. Today, prayer has been removed from public schools and Christian students can be reprimanded for expressing their Christianity.

Christians cannot be reprimanded for expressing their religious convictions, any school that does so is acting outside of its jurisdiction. Schools are prevented from endorsing any specific religious beliefs, due to the establishment clause.

You will be hard pressed to convince me that evolutionism has nothing to do with this. Just as we speak of the straw that broke the camel's back, evolutionism seems to be the straw that finally secularized our school system.

Diversity of opinion is what is causing greater enforcement of our already secular nation. When everybody in a town is of the same religious denomination, you do not get a lot of complaints. Mix in a few catholics, a jewish family and an atheist or two, and these infractions become a problem.

I'm not saying that evolutionism is the only factor (perhaps it was only a straw). But it SEEMS to play a significant role, so I can't help but form opinions about it even though I am uneducated about evolution.

Evolution is a scientific theory. It is not responsible for enforcing secularism any more than is the atomic theory of chemistry.

Now back to Hugh Ross. I like him because (A) he doesn't throw all science to the wayside and (B) he strives for a literal reading of the Bible. I don't know to what extent I can trust his conclusions, but right now I have no one else to look to. My experience with God leads me to prefer a literal reading of the Bible. Hugh Ross is the only scientist I know who has this same aspiration.

You guys show me a whole slew of supposedly transitional forms. Hugh Ross says that they are not transitional. Who am I supposed to believe?

Why accept anything on authority. Understand the science. Examine the data, read the analyses. The reason evolution is so widely accepted is not because of evil atheist scientists (most scientists are not atheists) it is because it is well supported.

At this point, I don't know. All I can say is that I still have reservations about evolution. Here is an article by Hugh Ross that I am currently looking at. It will take me a while to work through it. Feel free to comment on it if you like:
http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/humanevolution.shtml

Looking at this article, one particular sentence comes to mind:

With respect to human origins, evolutionary biologists have made an a priori philosophical commitment to a strictly naturalistic explanation based primarily on a neo-Darwinian evolutionary paradigm.


​

My problem with the sentence is that it tries to single out evolutionary science as being methodologically materialistic. The fact is all science is methodologically materialistic. Science has to assume natural causes because natural causes are the only thing the method can investigate. Singling out evolution leads the reader to believe that evolutionary science is somehow different from other forms of science, and therefore less reliable. This is simply not the case.




Here is another sentence in the same essay:

It is clear that evolutionary relationships proposed by paleoanthropologists are highly speculative and developed from unreliable and poorly understood data sets of limited size. In light of this, it is scientifically untenable to assert that human evolution is a fact.


​

This is, of course, very misleading. Yes, given just fossils it is nealry impossible to determine which fossil species lead to which other fossil species. However, that does not detract from each of these fossils being exquisite examples of transitionals, showing the gradual morphologic change from an ape-like ancestor to modern humans.


Let me explain transitional species to you. If evolution is correct then there is a single family tree for all species. If this is true, then there once existed species who were the common ancestor of closely related extant species such as humans and chimpanzees. If that is true, then there also existed species that demonstrate the emergence and development of the specific traits that separate the modern species from the proposed evolutionary ancestor. In the case of humans, this would be something very ape-like.

Due to the branching nature of evolution, and the frequent pruning of the family tree, there will likely have been many species that displayed some of these intermediate traits, and some of these likely went extinct.

Given all of this, we would expect to find some fossils that demonstrate these intermediate character traits, but it is not possible to know if the represented species were directly ancestral to the extant species (humans) or simply lived on an extinct side branch.

Not knowing the specific family tree of these fossils does not negate they are exactly the kind of creatures predicted by evolution. To be clear, here is a nice picture of some of these species arranged to show a gradual progression:

 

[JAL]

If you believe that our public school system shouldn't be secular, then you are unamerican and I'm going to have to insist you get the heck out of my country

You want to throw me out of the country because I have a religous opinion? And you call that American? I've heard of censorship of speech - I've NEVER heard of censorship of belief. I am beginning to see why that commentator on TV stated, "These ACLU people are scary." He said this in DIRECT REFERENCE to their hostility toward religion.

BTW, while you are busy throwing me of the country, cast your vote to throw out all those senators and U.S. Presidents who supported prayer in schools for so many generations. Looks like we'll have to throw out George Busch as well since he likes those traditional practices. You speak as though you represent the feelings of this country. In that case, I'm surprised they voted for George Bush rather than you. I see it how it works, It's ok to write "In God We Trust" on our dollar bills so long as we don't mention God anywhere but the church. So I can buy my school lunch with that phrase - but heaven forbid that a teacher mention God in class!

Today, no one is asking that prayer be mandatory. They would rather see a moment allocated for prayer without forcing everyone to participate. And yes, many Christians have been reprimanded for praying, carrying Bibles to school, and expressing their beliefs. Some have had to take it to the Supreme Court where they battled the ACLU, so I'm sorry I'm not filled with gratitude toward you ACLU folks at this time.

 

[JAL]

Diversity of opinion is what is causing greater enforcement of our already secular nation. When everybody in a town is of the same religious denomination, you do not get a lot of complaints. Mix in a few catholics, a jewish family and an atheist or two, and these infractions become a problem.
Evolution is a scientific theory. It is not responsible for enforcing secularism any more than is the atomic theory of chemistry.

No, I don't think it's Jews and Catholics complaining about prayer in public schools. It is movements hostile to Christianity such as the ACLU. I work for a fairly large company owned by Jews. Far from opposing prayer, I've seen them call the whole company to pray ON THE JOB - and no religious employees complained (even privately to my knowledge) despite the mix of religions. No, it's radical, religion-hostile movements that complain about this country's traditional values.

Why accept anything on authority. Understand the science. Examine the data, read the analyses.

Obviously, anti-authoritarians tend to assume that anti-authoritarianism is the only rational world view. You may have to face eternity. The rational thing to do is to try to anticipate the possibilities. If God exists, He has to speak clearly (otherwise we won't know which religion is true). Those of us who feel we hear Him have no choice but to consider Him, and His Word, authoritative. We feel that's the only rational way to live. But even people who never claimed to hear God have acknowledged that Creationism is a rational, scientific point of view. I'll go back to the standard argument. Suppose you found a machine on a distant planet and verified that it's material did not come from our galaxy. It would be a rational, scientific conclusion that intelligent life created it. In no way would you consider this conclusion "religious" or "untestable" or "unproven." That's all Creationism is stating, namely that the human body appears to be the most sophisticated machine in existence. You might disagree, and that's your opinion, but merely having an opinion doesn't prove that MY opinion is unscientific. Tell me what machines do - and I'll show you that the human body does all of that, and probably a whole lot more. It is an intelligent, rational, scientific conclusion that an Intelligent Life manufactured it. And the more you deny this, the more I will be convinced that evolutoionists are biased, and the less likely I will be to trust their sources (and frankly this is already happening on a grand scale). Heck, to expose the bias, all I have to do in this forum is voice one opinion (even with the cautious disclaimer that "I am merely speculating") and suddenly many of the evolutionists on this forum descend upon me like a pack of wolves. It wouldn't be so bad if their refutations were consistently relevant, but half the time they mispreresent/distort/trivialize my arguments. And I see them doing the same thing to others. All this is clear evidence of bias and hostility, in my opinion. It is often a far cry from what I would call "science." I am not denying that YECs have often done worse. What I deny is all these pretenses of "pure science."

 

[Ondoher]

Obviously, anti-authoritarians tend to assume that anti-authoritarianism is the only rational world view.

Are you implying I am anti-authoritarian? I'm not, I accept the authority of my boss, and of my government. I'm not some teenager in rebellion. But i don't accept an idea just because somebody with a PhD says it is true either. I examine the arguments.

You may have to face eternity. The rational thing to do is to try to anticipate the possibilities. If God exists, He has to speak clearly (otherwise we won't know which religion is true). Those of us who feel we hear Him have no choice but to consider Him, and His Word, authoritative. We feel that's the only rational way to live.

I was not referring to the authority of god, but of those who claim to hold a scientific position.

But even people who never claimed to hear God have acknowledged that Creationism is a rational, scientific point of view.

Name one.

I'll go back to the standard argument. Suppose you found a machine on a distant planet and verified that it's material did not come from our galaxy. It would be a rational, scientific conclusion that intelligent life created it.

No, it wouldn't. We recognize manufactured things because we know something about the makers and the manfacturing technologies. If this object did not fall under what we understand about manufactured items then we could not draw such a conclusion.

In no way would you consider this conclusion "religious" or "untestable" or "unproven."

Actualy, yes I would.

That's all Creationism is stating, namely that the human body appears to be the most sophisticated machine in existence. You might disagree, and that's your opinion, but merely having an opinion doesn't prove that MY opinion is unscientific.

I don't dispute the complexity of the human body, or any extant form of life, really.

Tell me what machines do - and I'll show you that the human body does all of that, and probably a whole lot more. It is an intelligent, rational, scientific conclusion that an Intelligent Life manufactured it.

No, it isn't. It is not scientific. How do you falsify the claim that life was designed by an omnipotent creator? What hypothetical observations would be inconsistant with this claim? What useful knowledge do we gain from this conclusion? I'm sorry, but intelligent design is not science, howerver much you'd like it to be.

And the more you deny this, the more I will be convinced that evolutoionists are biased, and the less likely I will be to trust their sources (and frankly this is already happening on a grand scale).

Yes, evolution, and all science, is heavily biased towards those explanations that can be tested. Science has no choice but to be so.

Heck, to expose the bias, all I have to do in this forum is voice one opinion (even with the cautious disclaimer that "I am merely speculating") and suddenly many of the evolutionists on this forum descend upon me like a pack of wolves. It wouldn't be so bad if their refutations were consistently relevant, but half the time they mispreresent/distort/trivialize my arguments. And I see them doing the same thing to others. All this is clear evidence of bias and hostility, in my opinion. It is often a far cry from what I would call "science." I am not denying that YECs have often done worse. What I deny is all these pretenses of "pure science."

Specific examples would be nice. Especially since this seems to be aimed at me personally.

 

[JAL]

Are you implying I am anti-authoritarian? I'm not, I accept the authority of my boss, and of my government. I'm not some teenager in rebellion.

No. I did not mean anti-authoritarian in that sense.

But i don't accept an idea just because somebody with a PhD says it is true either. I examine the arguments.

I don't see the relevance of this statement, unless i perhaps connects to this next one:

I was not referring to the authority of god, but of those who claim to hold a scientific position.

I don't think I portrayed myelf as authoritarian in the sense of believing anyone who has a PhD. So if this statement doesn't apply to me, and doesn't apply to you, why are you bringing it up? This is exactly what I'm talking about - so much hostility to my point of view resulting in a refutation that either mispresents/distorts/trivializes much of what I say.

Name one.

Here you want me to name an example of a person who held that Creationism is a scientific point of view without having claimed to hear God's voice. Is this a serious question? Why don't we start with the man known as the Father of Modern Science - Descartes? Should we mention the founder of gravity, Isaac Newton, who at one point claimed that gravity cannot be explained without a Creator ergo Creationism? Were these men insufficiently scientific to suit your tastes?

 

[Ondoher]

No. I did not mean anti-authoritarian in that sense.

I don't see the relevance of this statement, unless i perhaps connects to this next one:

I don't think I portrayed myelf as authoritarian in the sense of believing anyone who has a PhD. So if this statement doesn't apply to me, and doesn't apply to you, why are you bringing it up? This is exactly what I'm talking about - so much hostility to my point of view resulting in a refutation that either mispresents/distorts/trivializes much of what I say.

The original comment was in response to this quote:

You guys show me a whole slew of supposedly transitional forms. Hugh Ross says that they are not transitional. Who am I supposed to believe?

I simply asked, why accept anything that somebody says on authority alone; i.e. just because he has a PhD. My point was, try to understand the arguments.

None of what followed was intended to be hostile, and I apologize if it seemed that way.


However, I do not see how I either distored, misrepresented or trivialized anything you said.

Here you want me to name an example of a person who held that Creationism is a scientific point of view without having claimed to hear God's voice. Is this a serious question? Why don't we start with the man known as the Father of Modern Science - Descartes? Should we mention the founder of gravity, Isaac Newton, who at one point claimed that gravity cannot be explained without a Creator ergo Creationism? Were these men insufficiently scientific to suit your tastes?

These men were all christians. By "heard the voice of God," I assumed you meant they were christian. I'm not aware of any nontheists who claim that creationism is good science. And this would be for the reasons I listed. Also, pointing to people who believed in a literal genesis before modern geology or modern biology can hardly be used a refutation of these sciences.

 

[Freodin]

We recognize manufactured things because we know something about the makers and the manfacturing technologies. If this object did not fall under what we understand about manufactured items then we could not draw such a conclusion.

That´s the rub! That´s the point that makes all the "watch on the beach" analogies fail.

We DO know mechanisms to create machines - we do NOT know any mechanisms to create fully grown human beings out of clay or other "creations" by supernatural entities.

 

[JAL]

What hypothetical observations would be inconsistant with this [creational] claim? What useful knowledge do we gain from this conclusion? I'm sorry, but intelligent design is not science, howerver much you'd like it to

What scientific use is the theory of creation? Part of what scientists do today, as far as I know, is break down species into categories. I believe this is called taxonomy. This didn't begin with Charles Darwin. Aristotle was already doing that thousands of years ago. Evolutionism can actually be a hindrance to science because a scientist can become so obsessed with proving evolution and identifying transitions/transitoinal forms that other aspects of science can be neglected. If you want classify species in taxa, fine. If you want to study genetics, fine. I don't see why one has to be an evolutionist to do this.

You stated that if you found a machine on a distant planet, you wouldn't consider this evidence of intelligent life. I'm sorry, but I don't believe you. I'm not calling you a liar, the reality is that you've probably convinced yourself of this on account of an emotional hostility to my position. But even if it were true of you, I don't think the body of scientists at large would agree with you. Once they had ruled out that the machine came from a human, they would generally consider it to be at least preliminary evidence of intelligent life. So my argument stands, namely, that is a thoroughly scientific conclusion that intelligent life stands behind any machine (such as the human body).